If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think everyone who is so anxious to believe that Dumbledore never used Dark Magic is forgetting two things:

Alastor "Mad Eye" Moody (the Auror, not the imposter Crouch Jr) was given special dispensation from the Ministry to use the Unforgiveables against the Death Eaters and gives every indication of having done so when he could not at all possibly avoid it (but that he did his level best to avoid it when at all possible)

Killing a person is illegal in the Muggle world, too, but it's accepted as a necessary evil in matters of self, home and homeland defence, and in the case of a police versus criminals - or even SUSPECTS!

Dumbledore was fighting a war against Grindelwald, not having a minor disagreement over the paint colour for the wall of their boudoir.

If, by killing one completely evil person you can save the lives of countless innocents, then you are morally obligated to take that person out of the equation.

In this case, things are not so easily "black and white" - there are tons of shades of grey in there, and you can Levitate someone over the edge of a cliff and then remove the incantation, and when they hit the bottom they are no less dead than if you hit them square in the face with an Avada Kedavra.

Killing a person is illegal in the Muggle world, too, but it's accepted as a necessary evil in matters of self, home and homeland defence, and in the case of a police versus criminals - or even SUSPECTS!

That's exactly the reason why Aurors (and not everyone) were given permission to use the Unforgivables on Death Eaters. BUT, Dumbledore was not an Auror, so going by the law, if he had used any of the Unforgivables on anyone (which includes Grindelwald) he would be in for a life-time term in Azkaban. Of course, because he did everyone a favour he might have had his term ripped off or shortened, but the fact remains that he did use an Unforgivable.

We don't even know if Dumbledore used Unforgivables on Grindelwald. All we know is that he defeated Grindelwald, so it's entirely possible he did that without the help of Dark Arts.

Dumbledore says to Voldemort in OotP that merely taking Voldemort's life wouldn't be enough to him and that there are things worse than death. Maybe he administered one of those things on Grindelwald that made him powerless and defeated him without using Dark Arts at all?

That's exactly the reason why Aurors (and not everyone) were given permission to use the Unforgivables on Death Eaters. BUT, Dumbledore was not an Auror, so going by the law, if he had used any of the Unforgivables on anyone (which includes Grindelwald) he would be in for a life-time term in Azkaban. Of course, because he did everyone a favour he might have had his term ripped off or shortened, but the fact remains that he did use an Unforgivable.

We don't even know if Dumbledore used Unforgivables on Grindelwald. All we know is that he defeated Grindelwald, so it's entirely possible he did that without the help of Dark Arts.

Dumbledore says to Voldemort in OotP that merely taking Voldemort's life wouldn't be enough to him and that there are things worse than death. Maybe he administered one of those things on Grindelwald that made him powerless and defeated him without using Dark Arts at all?

I believe you are deliberately missing my point.

We have no idea if anyone besides Moody was given permission to use the Unforgiveables - NOT all the Aurors were, for example - Dumbledore may well have been given that permission for all we know. But he just as easily may not have, and in any case, that's not the point.

Not all Dark magic is illegal. That's not the point either.

The entire "Unforgiveable" thing is somewhat vague, actually. If the ONLY way to kill a witch or wizard is to use the Kiling Curse on them, what do you do when they invade your home and mutilate your entire family including your young children? Stand by and watch because you aren't justified the use of the Kiling Curse or Imperio to stop them? That, honestly, just doesn't sound very plausible. In most cases, the law looks to you as justified in kiling someone to defend yourself or your family if there is no other way. The way you are saying it, the Death Eaters could have barged into a children's hospital and raped and tortured and mutilated every patient before killing them in a particularly painful and spectacular way and nobody under any circumstances with the sole exception of Moody would have been given any authority to do anything to stop them except for cast a dancing jinx on them.

Dumbledore was a soldier in a war, not an innocent bystander. Your apparent take on this is that only Aurors should ever have the authority to defend anyone.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Dumbledore *did* do something else to Grindelwald. The argument has been made that anything that overrides a person's free will - such as Imperio - or deliberately seeks to actively harm them - such as Sectusempra - is Dark magic. Is taking Grindelwald's magical power and rendering him a Squib against his will which inarguably harms him any less Dark magic?

We have no idea if anyone besides Moody was given permission to use the Unforgiveables

All the Aurors were given permission. Sirius says so in "Padfoot Returns" pg 457 of GoF.

If the ONLY way to kill a witch or wizard is to use the Kiling Curse on them, what do you do when they invade your home and mutilate your entire family including your young children? Stand by and watch because you aren't justified the use of the Kiling Curse or Imperio to stop them? That, honestly, just doesn't sound very plausible. In most cases, the law looks to you as justified in kiling someone to defend yourself or your family if there is no other way. The way you are saying it, the Death Eaters could have barged into a children's hospital and raped and tortured and mutilated every patient before killing them in a particularly painful and spectacular way and nobody under any circumstances with the sole exception of Moody would have been given any authority to do anything to stop them except for cast a dancing jinx on them.

There is a difference between defence and offence. If someone barges into my house, trying to kill everyone in my family, then I can use the Avada Kedavra to save my family. That is defence and is legal in Muggle laws as well. Even then, it isn't entirely necessary for my to to use Avada Kedavra when I can use a simple Stupefy charm and hand the intruder over to the Aurors.

Not everyone wanders around with a pistol in hand, ready to fire it whenever anyone barges into their house. Similarly, not everyone would use the Avada Kedavra. (I doubt it's common for wizards to know how to fire it because just the incantation isn't enough to cast it)

BUT, in the case of Dumbledore using the Avada Kedavra, he wasn't being attacked at gunpoint, and had every family member threatened, in which case him using the AK would be justified because he had to defend himself. But that was not the case.

Dumbledore was a soldier in a war, not an innocent bystander. Your apparent take on this is that only Aurors should ever have the authority to defend anyone.

I'm not saying that only Aurors should have the authority, but only they were given authority by the Ministry. So, technically speaking, Dumbledore casting the AK was illegal. Dumbledore hasn't been very famous with the Ministry, so I think we can assume that he wasn't given the permission.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Dumbledore *did* do something else to Grindelwald. The argument has been made that anything that overrides a person's free will - such as Imperio - or deliberately seeks to actively harm them - such as Sectusempra - is Dark magic. Is taking Grindelwald's magical power and rendering him a Squib against his will which inarguably harms him any less Dark magic?

Like you said in your post, not all Dark Magic is illegal. So taking away Grindelwald's powers would not be illegal but casting an Avada Kedavra on him would be considered illegal by the law.

If all magic that harms someone is Dark Magic, then even a simple Stupefy, that overrides someone's free will to move, should be considered Dark Magic. Then almost all spells in the magical world would be considered Dark, but only the three Unforgivables are the darkest of magic and hence illegal. We don't know if Sectumsempra is well known (it was known during the Marauder Era, but might not be as popular as the Unforgivables) so we can't really say if Sectumsempra is illegal.

If Dumbledore used a Stupefy on Grindelwald and bundled him off to Antartica or dumped him in the Atlantic ocean, does it mean Dumbledore used Dark Magic on Grindelwald? Not at all. There are other ways to "defeat" a person without using Dark Magic.

Would Dumbledore do this?

I have a question about how Dumbledore would act in a specific situation I'm writing about.

Situation: A major player in the story (say, one of the Order) has had their memory modified by someone with connections high up in the Ministry. Dumbledore needs to recover this person's memory, but in order to safely do so, he needs the wand that was used to cast the Memory Charm. (This isn't canon as far as I know, but I needed a way for him to counter the Memory Charm without destroying the person's brain a la Voldemort and Bertha Jorkins.) He has evidence that the Memory Charm was illegally performed and he knows who did it, but powerful friends in the Ministry refuse to let a trial go forward.

Question: Would Dumbledore resort to stealing the person's wand, rather than wait what might be a very long time for a trial to take place? I realize he probably wouldn't personally break into someone's house and steal their wand, but what if he asked somebody like Mundungus to do it for him, and then had him return it when he was finished (in the middle of the night, of course, so the person would have no idea it had even gone missing)?

I realize this is a pretty involved question, but any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

You're sort of right: it wouldn't be like Dumbledore to break into someone's house and steal stuff.

However, I don't see him giving anyone plain orders to carry out the job. If he would give such orders, he would do so in a subtle manner and wouldn't force them to do it if they didn't want to. This isn't going to be easy; you must choose Dumbledore's words carefully. Making him seem a little casual at first while beginning a conversation with Dung (or anyone else) and gradually coming to the task at hand will make him more in-character (and your readers won't be stunned). He will need to be subtle with his orders, though.

Also, try and take care not to make Albus sound extremely desperate. But that would also depend on the characters in the situation.

Neat question!
My first thought was that Dumbledore can be pretty ruthless when something needs to be done. At least, I can see see him that way. I don't know that he'd resort to stealing, though, or even sending someone else to steal it.

What if he confronted this person, pleasantly but forcefully? I could see a scene like that happening. I could see him subtlely threatening this person, and basically forcing the other wizard to give Dumbledore the wand just for a little while - borrowing it. Say Dumbledore threatens him with exposure or something similar. Yes, it sounds like blackmail but like I said I think Dumbledore has it in him to be ruthless enough to do something like that, if it was important enough, like this memory. He would of course be his usual quirky, twinkly eyed self the whole while.

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me, and it might not fit with the story you have planned. But it's an idea, which will hopefully generate more! Good luck!
~Gina

I agree with anyone else that says that Dumbledore wouldn't want to use the Killing Curse intentionally just to laugh in the person's face. I believe it would weigh heavily on his conscience for a while. But then again, he is fighting a battle against Grindlewald (sp?). So maybe if he wanted to win badly enough he would want to do it. It also depends on whether or not he has been fighting him for a long time, so he would be relieved.
I'm sure some of you might not agree with me, so please tell me what you think about it.

Yes, this is intriguing! I agree with Gmariam absolutely; why do you think people will disagree? You could even look back in HBP when Dumbledore is with the Dursleys to get a feel for how he would act in a situation where he is angry, but also wants something and is trying to be polite. The important thing is to keep him twinkly and light-mannered, but still allow that glimmer of steel and power to shine through and make the person he is "persuading" see that he means business. Another aspect that will make it more realistic is having Dumbledore only allude to any threats that he may or may not carry out--he'll have to dance around the issue. Which would be tricky--there is another option though, maybe.

Perhaps you could have him do something a little sneaky while visiting this person--steal the wand right out from under their nose, eyes twinkling away, with a bit of fancy wandwork like he did with the woman running Tom Riddle's orphanage (her name eludes me). Anyway, experiment a bit with the ideas you've recieved so far from everyone; I'll be interested to see how it all works out if you decide to post.

I have another question about how Dumbledore might act, how ruthless he might get.

It seems to me that Dumbledore would want to protect the information about the Horcruxes at almost all costs. If Voldemort found out that Dumbledore knew, and was looking for them, then Voldemort might gather them and protect them, even start making more. So if someone found out about the Horcruxes, how would Dumbledore react? Do you think he would go so far as to Obliviate their memory of the conversation??

I could see it. Does it depend on who he is Obliviating? It's Snape whom I'm thinking of. Yes, I know Snape knows Occlumency and can protect his mind from Voldemort. That's why I'm wondering just how far would Dumbledore go with this. I still think he could be ruthless enough to do it, but I'm not sure if he would do it to Snape. I'm not sure it's necessary. How much do you think he would trust Snape?